Morgan Stanley v. Stone Gabriel
Claim Number: FA2205001998634
Complainant is Morgan Stanley (“Complainant”), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Stone Gabriel (“Respondent”), United Kingdom.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <morgan-stanly.co>, registered with NameCheap, Inc..
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 31, 2022; the Forum received payment on May 31, 2022.
On June 1, 2022, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <morgan-stanly.co> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On June 1, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 21, 2022 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@morgan-stanly.co. Also on June 1, 2022, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On June 28, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant states that it offers a full range of financial, investment, and wealth management services to a broad spectrum of clients through a unique combination of institutional and retail capabilities. With over 1,000 offices in over 40 countries, and over 55,000 employees worldwide, Complainant offers truly global access to financial markets and advice. In 2020, Complainant had net revenues of over US$ 48,000,000,000. Complainant claims rights in the MORGAN STANLEY mark through its registration with multiple trademark agencies, including in the United States in 1992. The mark is famous.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusing similar to its MORGAN STANLEY as it consists of a misspelling of the mark (the “e” is omitted), merely adding a hyphen and with the “.co” country-code top-level domain (“ccTLD”).
According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its MORGAN STANLEY mark in any way. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for a legitimate non-commercial or fair use, as Respondent has not made demonstrable preparations to make active use of the disputed domain name. Instead, Respondent engages in typosquatting, using a common misspelling of Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY mark.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. First, Respondent uses the confusingly similar domain name to benefit from the goodwill associated with the MORGAN STANLEY mark and attract Internet users to its webpage. Moreover, Respondent has not made active use of the disputed domain name. Instead, Respondent uses the domain name to generate initial interest confusion. Further, Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name constitutes typosquatting. Finally, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with constructive and/or actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the MORGAN STANLEY mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the mark MORGAN STANLEY dating back to 1992 and uses it to provide banking and financial services around the world. The mark is famous.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2022.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The disputed domain name is not being used.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
The disputed domain name consists of a misspelling of Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY mark (the “e” is omitted), merely adding a hyphen and with the “.co” country-code top-level domain (“ccTLD”). Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), incorporating misspelled the mark, adding a hyphen, and a ccTLD are not sufficient changes to distinguish domain name from a protected mark. See Intelius, Inc. v. Hyn, FA 703175 (Forum July 5, 2006) (finding the <intellus.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s INTELIUS mark because the domain name differed from the mark by one letter and was visually similar); see also Pirelli & C. S.p.A. v. Tabriz, FA 921798 (Apr. 12, 2007) (finding that the addition of a hyphen between terms of a registered mark did not differentiate the <p-zero.org> domain name from the P ZERO mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also CloudFlare, Inc. v. [Registrant], FA 1624251 (Forum Aug. 1, 2015) (holding, “The inclusion of a ccTLD does not alleviate the similarity between a mark and a disputed domain name as per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also ER Marks, Inc. and QVC, Inc. v. Stefan Hansmann, FA 1381755 (Forum May 6, 2011) (“Neither the addition of country code top-level domains, i.e., ‘.co.,’ ‘.de,’ ‘.cr,’ ‘.es,’ nor the insertion of a gTLD has a distinctive function”). Therefore the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name); see also Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. Mohamed elkassaby, FA 1801815 (Forum Sept. 17, 2018) (“The WHOIS lists “Mohamed elkassaby” as registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant’s unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”). Here, the WHOIS information shows that the registrant of the disputed domain name is s “Stone Gabriel”. Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The disputed domain name is not being used. Failure to make active use of a domain name generally does not qualify as r a bona fide offering of goods and services, nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Activision Blizzard, Inc. / Activision Publishing, Inc. / Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. Cimpress Schweiz GmbH, FA 1737429 (Forum Aug. 3, 2017) (“Complainant insists that Respondent has made no demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name. When Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with an active website, the Panel may find that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services… As Respondent has not provided a response to this action, Respondent has failed to meet its burden regarding proof of any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain.”). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
Further, Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name constitutes typosquatting. Past panels have found no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent uses a typosquatted domain name to divert internet users. See Nat’l Ass’n of Prof’l Baseball Leagues, Inc. v. Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) (“Typosquatting … as a means of redirecting consumers against their will to another site, does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services, whatever may be the goods or services offered at that site.”). Thus, on this ground also, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under of Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
And, for all the above reasons, the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
According to paragraph 4.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0”), a Panel may conduct limited factual research regarding disputed domain names:
Noting in particular the general powers of a panel articulated inter alia in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the UDRP Rules, it has been accepted that a panel may undertake limited factual research into matters of public record if it would consider such information useful to assessing the case merits and reaching a decision.
This may include visiting the website linked to the disputed domain name in order to obtain more information about the respondent or its use of the domain name, consulting historical resources such as the Internet Archive (www.archive.org) in order to obtain an indication of how a domain name may have been used in the relevant past, reviewing dictionaries or encyclopedias (e.g., Wikipedia), or accessing trademark registration databases.
The Panel has determined that there are MX records for the disputed domain name, therefore it might be intended for use in an email phishing scheme.
Be that as it may, Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Indeed, as already noted, the disputed domain name is not being used. According to paragraph 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0): “From the inception of the UDRP, panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put.”
In the present case, Complainant’s trademark is famous. It is difficult to envisage any use of the disputed domain name that would not violate the Policy, see Morgan Stanley v. TONY / shentony, FA 1637186 (Forum Oct. 10, 2015) (“Respondent registered the disputed domain name [MORGANSTANLEY.ONLINE] in bad faith because . . . it is difficult to envisage any use of the disputed domain name that would not violate the Policy”); see also Singapore Airlines Ltd. v. European Travel Network, D2000-0641 (WIPO Aug. 29, 2000) (where selection of disputed domain name is so obviously connected to complainant’s well-known trademark, use by someone with no connection with complainant suggests opportunistic bad faith); see also Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., Sheraton Int’l IP, LLC, Westin Hotel Mgmt., L.P. v. Jingjing Tang, D2014-1040 (WIPO Aug. 19, 2014) (“The Panel finds that the [WESTIN] Marks are not such that could legitimately be adopted by traders other than for the purpose of creating an impression of an association with Complainant. Thus, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith”).
There has been no response to the Complaint and Respondent used a privacy service, that is, it attempted to conceal its identity. Given these circumstances, the Panel finds that, in this particular case, a finding of bad faith use can be inferred even though the disputed domain name is not being actively used. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000).
Further, also as already noted, Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name constitutes typosquatting. Registration and use of a domain name that capitalizes on a common typographical error is considered typosquatting and is additional evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Zone Labs, Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 190613 (Forum Oct. 15, 2003) (“Respondent’s registration and use of [the <zonelarm.com> domain name] that capitalizes on the typographical error of an Internet user is considered typosquatting. Typosquatting, itself is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). Therefore the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <morgan-stanly.co> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: June 29, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page